From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:33:35 -0600 References: <20051030235440.6938a0e9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051101144622.GC9911@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20051101144622.GC9911@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511011233.36713.rob@landley.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin , "Martin J. Bligh" , Andrew Morton , kravetz@us.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: On Tuesday 01 November 2005 08:46, Ingo Molnar wrote: > how will the 100% solution handle a simple kmalloc()-ed kernel buffer, > that is pinned down, and to/from which live pointers may exist? That > alone can prevent RAM from being removable. Would you like to apply your "100% or nothing" argument to the virtual memory management subsystem and see how it sounds in that context? (As an argument that we shouldn't _have_ one?) > Ingo Rob -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org